Recently, lead plaintiffs the Sheet Metal Workers' NationalPension Fund and the Alaska Ironworkers Pension Trust filed amotion with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District ofPennsylvania, seeking approval for the settlement.

On June 1, 2009, the high court ruled that Bank of America neednot pay a potential $1 billion or more to customers who claimedthe bank illegally raided Social Security benefits to collectfees, according to the Reuters report.

Plaintiffs in the class-action case, who are represented byJames Sturdevant, Esq., had accused the largest U.S. bank ofdipping into their Social Security direct deposit accountsbetween 1994 and 2003 to collect fees for overdrafts and otherdebts.

In 2004, a San Francisco trial court ordered the Charlotte,North Carolina bank to pay $284.4 million of damages, plus up to$1,000 to each customer who suffered substantial emotional oreconomic harm, reports Reuters.

Reuters reported that the case was filed on behalf of more than1.1 million customers, many of whom were elderly or disabled.Paul Miller, a disabled former photojournalist, was the originalplaintiff in the case, and a jury had awarded him $275,000.

In 1974, the California Supreme Court had ruled that a bank maynot satisfy a credit card debt by deducting fees owed from aseparate checking account containing deposits that "derived fromunemployment and disability benefits."

However, in a unanimous ruling, the high court distinguished thecurrent case by saying the transactions at issue occurred"within a single account" rather than in multiple accounts,Reuters reports.

California's highest court said policy concerns about settingoff independent debt, such as the importance of providing people"with a stream of income to defray the cost of theirsubsistence," were not present in this case.

Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for the court, "We do not agree withplaintiffs that there is no meaningful difference betweensatisfying a debt external to an account and recouping anoverdraft of an account from funds later deposited into thatsame account," reports Reuters.

In essence, the ruling upheld a 2006 appeals court decision thathad reversed the trial court ruling, according to the Reutersreport.

EXPEDIA INC: Judge Issues $184M Judgment in Wash. Litigation------------------------------------------------------------ A King County Superior Court judge ruled on May 28 thatExpedia, Inc. (Nasdaq: EXPE), the world's leading online travelbooking site, pay $184 million for repeatedly breaching itscontractual obligations to consumers by charging service feesunder false pretenses in millions of hotel transactions.

The judgment is the largest in Washington state history fora consumer class action.

Filed in 2005 by Steve Berman, managing partner of theSeattle law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro (HBSS) on behalf ofExpedia customers, the suit claimed that the travel giant paidtaxes based on the wholesale price, but collected taxes fromconsumers based the higher retail price, pocketing thedifference.

According to Andrew Volk, a partner at HBSS, the firm foundthat Expedia's scheme went further, involving the addition of a'service fee' to each transaction, purporting to cover thecompany's expenses incurred in servicing a reservation.

According to court documents, Expedia bundled the service-fee charges with taxes into a single line item, failing todisclose the separate amounts of each to consumers.

"Because Expedia only remits taxes based on the wholesaleprice -- which it never disclosed to consumers -- the taxesappear higher to consumers than they actually are, and Expediais able to mask the considerable size of its service fees," Volkadded.

In its Terms of Use agreement, which governs every hoteltransaction, Expedia promised that it would collect service feesonly to "cover the costs" of servicing a given hotelreservation. The Court found that Expedia breached that promiseby collecting service fees as pure profit.

Superior Court Judge Monica Benton ruled that Expediacollected a total of $184,470,452 in service fees, which she isordering the company return to consumers who purchased hotel ortravel packages including a hotel stay from Feb. 18, 2003 toDec. 11, 2006.

"In actuality, Expedia used the service fees to sweeten thedeal for the company at the direct expense of the consumer,"Berman noted. "They apparently thought no one would notice ifthey padded each transaction by a few dollars, money that wentstraight to profit."

In the court's ruling, the judge includes an excerpt froman e-mail dated Dec. 2001 between employees at Expediaexplaining the additional fees, "As a company, this will addbetween $2-3 million in our net profit (the bottom line) nextquarter."

"This case revolved on the issue of transparency andhonesty," said Steve Berman, managing partner of HBSS."Consumers deserve to know what they are paying for, andcompanies like Expedia have an obligation to be upfront."

The complaint also claimed that Expedia intentionallydesigned its invoices and Web site to de-emphasize the service-fee charges, and to lead consumers to believe the service feesare associated with legitimate expenses incurred as the resultof a particular reservation.

"We are obviously very pleased with the ruling and areheartened that we were able to help millions of Expediaconsumers through this action," Berman added. "This is thelargest judgment in a consumer class action in Washington statehistory."

In her seven-page summary judgment ruling, Judge Bentonruled that Expedia breached its contract with its customers.

Expedia still must defend charges it violated Washington'sConsumer Protection Act in a trial slated for July in Kent.

"Our goal is to get the money in the hands of consumers asquickly as possible," Volk noted.

FIDDLER'S CREEK: Faces Breach of Contract Lawsuit in Florida------------------------------------------------------------Fiddler's Creek, LLC and several others are facing a purportedclass-action lawsuit by two couples who purchased golfmembership contracts accusing defendants of taking more than $10million they say was to be held in escrow, Aisling Swift ofNaples Daily News reports.

The suit was filed on May 20, 2009 in the U.S. District Courtfor the Middle District of Florida by Glenn S. Vician, Dawn J.Vician, Richard Lohmeyer, and Kristi Lohmeyer, under thecaption, "Vician et al. v. Fiddler's Creek, LLC et al., Case No.2:2009-cv-00314."

The plaintiffs are alleging that the exclusive, private golfclub they paid $90,000 to join as Gold Members, on top of paying$7,800 in annual dues, has been operated as a public golf coursesince last year, with the public being allowed to play through,paying daily greens fees and no initiation deposit, according tothe Naples Daily News report.

Responding to the allegations, one of the defendants, contendsthe conditions for keeping the money in escrow have beenfulfilled and the lawsuit is baseless because it leaves out manyfacts, reports Naples Daily News.

According to the suit, members learned the escrow account wasempty at a recent advisory board meeting, but were not told whyafter demanding an accounting of their deposits, which were tobe held in escrow until a second course and clubhouse werecompleted.

"Their explanation was that despite what they put in writing,they don't have to put the funds in escrow," Robert Stochel,Esq., an Indiana lawyer, who along with Thomas Candler Chase,Esq. of Fort Myers, are serving as co-counsels in the case,tells Naples Daily News.

The lawsuit says the defendants' conduct and breach of contracthas caused irreparable damage and financial loss to plaintiffs.By allowing the public to pay a minor "seasonal" rate, thelawsuit says, the defendants have effectively eliminated newGold Members, since virtually no one has an interest in paying a$90,000 initiation deposit if they can have full access withoutpaying that.

The plaintiffs are seeking recision of their membershipagreement and a full refund, return of all annual dues for the2008 and 2009 golf seasons, and compensation for the breach ofcontract. The lawsuit also seeks damages for breach offiduciary duty, dissipation of escrow funds, conversion, andtheft, Naples Daily News reported.

In addition, the suit alleges that Ms. Ferrao and GBPDevelopment have failed or refused to pay real estate taxes andassessments on "scores of properties" owned by them in Fiddler'sCreek development over the past eight months, "indicating thatthey are grossly mismanaging the economic operations...,"according to Naples Daily News report.

Naples Daily News reported that the lawsuit asks that a judgedetermine whether the defendants promised to maintain a privategolf club, if they contracted with gold members to keep depositsin escrow until all golf facilities were built, whether theycharged a deposit for a private course that was converted to apublic course, and if Gulf Bay published false and misleadingwritten information about the club and escrow of deposits.

JP MORGAN: Plaintiffs Seek Voluntary Dismissal of N.Y. Lawsuit--------------------------------------------------------------Several plaintiffs in the matter, "In Re JP Morgan Chase CashBalance Litigation, Master File No. 06-CV-0732," have filed aproposed voluntary dismissal in connection to a portion of thecase, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of New York.

Current and former participants in the Plans filed the lawsuit,alleging various claims under the Employee Retirement IncomeSecurity Act. The plaintiffs' claims are based on allegedviolations of ERISA arising from the conversion to and use of acash balance formula under the Plans to calculate theparticipants' pension benefits.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that:

-- the conversion to and use of a cash balance formula under the Plans violated ERISA's proscription against age discrimination (age discrimination claim);

-- the conversion to a cash balance formula violated ERISA's proscriptions against the backloading of pension benefits and created an impermissible forfeiture of accrued benefits; and

-- defendants failed to adequately communicate to Plan participants the conversion to a cash balance formula and in general the nature of the Plan.

In October 2006, the U.S. District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York denied the firm's motion to dismiss the agediscrimination and notice claims, but granted its dismissalrequest as it pertains to the backloading and forfeiture claims.

On May 30, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York certified a class in this action. Theclass includes current participants in the JPMorgan ChaseRetirement Plan with claims relating to inadequate notice ofplan changes for the current period back to Jan. 1, 2002, andage discrimination claims going back as far as Jan. 1, 1989.The class excludes former participants who have elected toreceive a lump sum cash payment of their retirement benefits.

The Court reserved the right to revisit class certificationpending resolution of a similar case that is now before the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On July 31, 2007, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motions forreconsideration and certification of the May 30, 2007 Order.

Fact discovery, which was limited to the period Jan. 1, 2002,and thereafter, is now complete, and expert discovery isongoing.

On March 17, 2008, the District Court stayed the original cashbalance plan litigation for up to one year pending a decision bythe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in "Hirt v. TheEquitable Ret. Plan of Employees, Manager & Agents, No. 06-cv-4757," a case in which the company is not involved but whichraises similar issues, including the question of whether theconversion to, and use of, a cash balance formula violatesERISA's proscription against age discrimination. The Hirtappeal was argued on April 22, 2008.

The suit is "In re JPMorgan Chase Cash Balance Litigation, CaseNo. 06-732," filed before the District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York, Judge Harold Baer, presiding.

The Orleans Parish case, "Stephanie Press v. Louisiana CitizensFair Plan Property Insurance Corp.," is one of three hurricaneclass actions pending against Citizens. In total, the caseshave the potential to award tens of millions to policyholdersand create financial problems for Citizens, which can pass onbills to taxpayers if it does not have enough cash on had tofulfill its obligations, according to The Times-Picayune report.

John Wortman, chief executive of Citizens, told The Times-Picayune that the insurer plans to appeal the decision to theLouisiana Supreme Court.

According to Mark Smith, Esq., an attorney for the plaintiffs,the is one of a number of cases nationwide involving what iscalled contractor overhead and profit.

Mr. Smith explains to The Times-Picayune that anytime a repairjob requires three or more tradesmen, such as a plumber, aroofer and an electrician, a policyholder is entitled to hire ageneral contractor to coordinate all the parties. Theinsurance company is supposed to pay an extra 20 percent on topof labor and material costs to cover the contractor's servicesand profit, he said.

Mr. Smith alleged that Citizens paid contractor overhead andprofit for a while after the 2005 storms, stopped doing so for aperiod of time and then resumed payment at some point, TheTimes-Picayune reported.

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeals in ERISA Litigation Remain Pending----------------------------------------------------------------Appeals from the dismissed claims against Prudential Financial,Inc. in the matter tagged, "In re Employee Benefit InsuranceBrokerage Antitrust Litigation," are still pending in the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Purported class-action lawsuits brought by private plaintiffshave been consolidated in the multidistrict litigation in theU.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In August and September 2007, the court dismissed the anti-trustand Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims.

In January 2008, the court dismissed the Employee RetirementIncome Security Act claims with prejudice.

In February 2008, the court dismissed the state law claimswithout prejudice.

The Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for theThird Circuit. (Class Action Reporter, March 18, 2009)

No further developments in the consolidated matter weredisclosed in the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2009.

Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a financial services company with operations in United States,Asia, Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries andaffiliates, it offers an array of financial products andservices, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds,pension and retirement-related services and administration,investment management, real estate brokerage and relocationservices, and, through a joint venture, retail securitiesbrokerage services.

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Calif. Consolidated Brokers' Suit Pending---------------------------------------------------------------A multidistrict litigation remains pending in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Central District of California, accusingPrudential Financial, Inc. of improperly classifyingstockbrokers as exempt employees under state and federal wageand hour laws.

The suits -- recently consolidated in California for coordinatedtrial proceedings -- also name as defendants PrudentialSecurities, Inc. and Prudential Equity Group LLC.

Two of the complaints -- "Janowsky v. Wachovia Securities, LLC,and Prudential Securities Incorporated," and "Goldstein v.Prudential Financial, Inc." -- were filed in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Southern District of New York.

The Goldstein complaint purports to have been filed on behalf ofa nationwide class. The Janowsky complaint alleges a class ofNew York brokers.

Three complaints were filed in the California Superior Court andpurport to have been brought on behalf of classes of Californiabrokers.

The Carayanis complaint was subsequently withdrawn withoutprejudice in May 2006.

In June 2006, a purported New York state class action complaintwas filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District ofNew York, captioned "Panesenko v. Wachovia Securities, et al."

The Panesenko complaint is alleging that the company failed topay overtime to stockbrokers in violation of state and federallaw and that improper deductions were made from thestockbrokers' wages in violation of state law.

In September 2006, Prudential Securities was sued in "Badain v.Wachovia Securities, et al.," a purported nationwide class-action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the WesternDistrict of New York.

The complaint alleges that Prudential Securities failed to payovertime to stockbrokers in violation of state and federal lawand that improper deductions were made from the stockbrokers'wages in violation of state law.

In December 2006, all cases were transferred to the U.S.District Court for the Central District of California by theJudicial Panel on multidistrict litigation for coordinated orconsolidated pre-trial proceedings.

No further developments in the consolidated matter weredisclosed in the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2009.

Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a financial services company with operations in United States,Asia, Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries andaffiliates, it offers an array of financial products andservices, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds,pension and retirement-related services and administration,investment management, real estate brokerage and relocationservices, and, through a joint venture, retail securitiesbrokerage services.

In October 2004, the company and Prudential Securities werenamed as defendants in several class actions brought on behalfof purchasers and holders of shares in a number of mutual fundcomplexes.

The actions are consolidated as part of a multi-districtproceeding, "In re: Mutual Fund Investment Litigation," pendingin the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

The complaints allege that the purchasers and holders wereharmed by dilution of the funds' values and excessive fees,caused by market timing and late trading, and seek unspecifieddamages.

In August 2005, the company was dismissed from several of theactions, without prejudice to repleading the state claims, butremains a defendant in other actions in the consolidatedproceeding.

In July 2006, in one of the consolidated mutual fund actions,"Saunders v. Putnam American Government Income Fund, et al.,"the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland grantedplaintiffs leave to refile their federal securities law claimsagainst Prudential Securities.

In August 2006, the second amended complaint was filed allegingfederal securities law claims on behalf of a purportednationwide class of mutual fund investors seeking compensatoryand punitive damages in unspecified amounts.

In June 2008, the company was dismissed with prejudice from theremaining actions consolidated in In re: Mutual Fund InvestmentLitigation other than Saunders v. Putnam American GovernmentIncome Fund, et al.

In July 2008, the company moved for summary judgment andplaintiffs moved for class certification in Saunders, accordingto the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March31, 2009.

Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a financial services company with operations in United States,Asia, Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries andaffiliates, it offers an array of financial products andservices, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds,pension and retirement-related services and administration,investment management, real estate brokerage and relocationservices, and, through a joint venture, retail securitiesbrokerage services.

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in New Jersey----------------------------------------------------------------Prudential Financial, Inc. and several of its executives arefacing purported class-action lawsuits in New Jersey, allegingthat the insurer violated federal securities laws in a June 2008public offering of junior subordinated notes.

In March 2009, a purported class-action lawsuit, "Bauer v.Prudential Financial, et al.," was filed in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of New Jersey.

The case names as defendants, the company, certain companyDirectors, the Chief Financial Officer, Controller and formerChief Executive Officer and former Principal Accounting Officer,underwriters and the company's independent auditors.

The complaint, brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's9% Junior Subordinated Notes (retail hybrid subordinated debt),alleges that the company's March 2006 Form S-3 RegistrationStatement and Prospectus and the June 2008 ProspectusSupplement, both of which incorporated other public filings,contained material misstatements or omissions.

In light of the company's disclosures in connection with its2008 financial results, plaintiffs contend that the earlieroffering documents failed to disclose impairments in thecompany's asset-backed securities collateralized with subprimemortgages and goodwill associated with certain subsidiaries andother assets, and that the company had inadequate controlsrelating to such reporting.

The complaint asserts violations of the Securities Act of 1933,alleging Section 11 claims against all defendants, Section 12(a)(2) claims against the company and underwriters and Section 15claims against the individual defendants, and seeks unspecifiedcompensatory and recessionary damages, interest, costs, fees,expenses and such injunctive relief as may be deemed appropriateby the court.

In April 2009, two additional purported class-action complaintswere filed in the same court, "Haddock v. Prudential Financial,Inc. et al.," and "Pinchuk v. Prudential Financial, Inc. et al."The complaints essentially allege the same claims and seek thesame relief as Bauer, according to the company's May 8, 2009Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Bauer v. Prudential Financial, Inc. et al., CaseNo. 2:09-cv-01120-jll-ccc," filed in the U.S. District Court forthe District of New Jersey, Judge Jose L. Linares, presiding.

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Seeks to Dismiss "Garcia" Suit on Benefits----------------------------------------------------------------Prudential Financial, Inc. seeks to dismiss a purportednationwide class-action suit, "Garcia v. Prudential InsuranceCompany of America," in the U.S. District Court for the Districtof New Jersey, according to the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended March 31, 2009.

The complaint, which was filed in November 2008, is brought onbehalf of beneficiaries of Prudential policies whose deathbenefits were placed in retained asset accounts. It allegesthat by investing the death benefits in these accounts,Prudential wrongfully delayed payment and improperly retainedundisclosed profits.

It alleges claims of breach of the contract of insurance, breachof contract with regard to the retained asset accounts, breachof fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.

Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a financial services company with operations in United States,Asia, Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries andaffiliates, it offers an array of financial products andservices, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds,pension and retirement-related services and administration,investment management, real estate brokerage and relocationservices, and, through a joint venture, retail securitiesbrokerage services.

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Seeks to Dismiss State Claims by Agents-------------------------------------------------------------Prudential Financial, Inc. seeks to dismiss certain state claimsin a consolidated purported nationwide class-action complaintfiled on behalf of agents in the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of New Jersey.

"Bouder" Lawsuit

In October 2006, a class-action lawsuit, "Bouder v. PrudentialFinancial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of America,"was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of NewJersey, claiming that the Prudential Insurance failed to payovertime to insurance agents who were registered representativesin violation of federal and Pennsylvania law, and that improperdeductions were made from these agents' wages in violation ofstate law.

The complaint seeks back overtime pay and statutory damages,recovery of improper deductions, interest, and attorneys' fees.

In March 2008, the court conditionally certified a nationwideclass.

"Wang" Litigation

In March 2008, a purported nationwide class-action lawsuit wasfiled in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District ofCalifornia, "Wang v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and PrudentialInsurance," on behalf of agents who sold the company's financialproducts.

The complaint alleges claims that the company failed to payovertime and provide other benefits in violation of Californiaand federal law and seeks compensatory and punitive damages inunspecified amounts.

Consolidated Proceeding

In September 2008, Wang was transferred to the U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with theBouder matter.

In January 2009, an amended complaint was filed in theconsolidated matter which adds wage claims based on the laws ofthirteen additional states.

In March 2009, a second amended complaint was filed, whichdropped the breach of contract claims.

The company moved to dismiss certain of the state claims in theconsolidated complaint, according to its May 8, 2009 Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended March 31, 2009.

Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a financial services company with operations in United States,Asia, Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries andaffiliates, it offers an array of financial products andservices, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds,pension and retirement-related services and administration,investment management, real estate brokerage and relocationservices, and, through a joint venture, retail securitiesbrokerage services.

RCN CORP: Faces Suit in Mass. Over Misclassification of Workers---------------------------------------------------------------RCN Corp. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit filed by aformer cable installer who is seeking unpaid overtime, insurancebenefits, compensation for medical bills for an on-the-job-injury, and expenses for using his own vehicle and tools, DonnaGoodison of The Boston Herald reports.

The proposed class-action lawsuit was filed by Fritz Elienbergof Roxbury on June 1, 2009 in th U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Massachusetts.

Mr. Elienberg, who is represented by Harold Lichten, Esq., isclaiming that the company misclassified him and as many as 1,000other U.S. installers as "independent contractors" so it coulddeprive them of overtime and other benefits, reports The BostonHerald.

According to his complaint, from 2005 until February 2009, Mr.Elienberg was employed as an "independent contractor" inMassachusetts by Pennsylvania-based Custom Cable Concepts, whichprovided installation work solely for RCN, The Boston Heraldreported.

The lawsuit alleges that RCN, RCN Telecom Services ofMassachusetts, and Custom Cable Concepts violated the federalFair Labor Standards Act and Massachusetts' independentcontractor and overtime laws, according to The Boston Heraldreport.

The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants buried the remains oftheir relatives in the wrong locations and/or in a way thatencroached on other plots. They also claimed that thedefendants plotted and sold burial plots with insufficient spaceso there was inadequate room to place bodies in their properlocations.

On Dec. 2, 2003, counsel for all parties reached an agreement ona class-wide settlement. The settlement agreement provides for$65 million ($40 million for compensatory damages and $25million for punitive damages) to be divided among class members.

On April 27, 2009, Broward County Circuit Judge RonaldRothschild approved final recommendations that clears the wayfor payments to about 350 remaining members of the litigation.

SKYBUS AIRLINES: Del. Court Approves $925,000 WARN Lawsuit Deal---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware approved a $925,000settlement reached in a purported class-action lawsuit againstSkybus Airlines, Inc., alleging it violated federal employmentlaw when it abruptly cut its work force upon filing forbankruptcy protection in 2008, The Business First of Columbusreports.

Under the settlement, $5,000 will be split between the twoworkers who led the 342-person class, while more than $300,000is headed to the lawyers for the plaintiffs. The remaining morethan $613,000 will be split with employees, coming out to about$1,800 a person, according to The Business First of Columbusreport.

Previously, The Associated Press reported that Skybus Airlinesagreed to settle a class-action suit filed by former employeeswho say they weren't properly told of the airline's plan to shutdown in 2008 (Class Action Reporter, March 17, 2009).

Attorney James Huggett, who represents the employees, tells TheAssociated Press that the amount of the settlement will likelybe disclosed in an upcoming court filing. He also says theagreement must be approved in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware.

The Associated Press previously reported that former employeesof Skybus Airlines filed a class-action lawsuit against thecompany with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District ofDelaware on April 15, 2008, saying they were not properly toldof the airline's plan to shut down operations (Class ActionReporter, April 21, 2008).

According to the lawsuit, Skybus violated the federal WorkerAdjustment and Retraining Notification Act, which requirescompanies to notify employees at least 60 days in advance of anymass layoffs.

AP says that in a court filing dated April 4 -- the last daySkybus was in operation -- the Columbus-based airline said itplanned to lay off 450 employees in several phases, with themajority losing their jobs as of April 7. Of those, 365 werebased in Columbus, with the remainder in Greensboro, N.C.

Former Skybus Chief Executive Officer Mike Hodge told TheColumbus Dispatch that the company believes it complied with thelaw. He cited a section of the WARN Act that grants anexception to companies that are actively seeking capital orbusiness that, if obtained, would have allowed those companiesto avoid or postpone a shutdown.

Passed by Congress in 1988, the WARN Act was intended to protectworkers and their families, the report explains. The law saysemployees who don't receive proper notice of plant closings orlayoffs are entitled to 60 days pay.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are seeking unpaid wages, bonuses,retirement benefits and holiday pay that they would havereceived during the 60-day period.

AP recounts that Skybus declared bankruptcy less than a yearafter beginning service. The low-cost carrier was known for its$10 fares and a la carte, pay-per-service flying. Like otherairlines, it struggled with rising fuel prices and a slowingeconomy.

SOURCEFIRE INC: June 12 Hearing Set for "Katz" Suit Settlement--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland will hold afairness hearing on June 12, 2009 at 2:15 p.m for the proposedsettlement in a consolidated securities fraud class-actionlawsuit pending against Sourcefire, Inc.

A putative class-action lawsuit was filed on May 8, 2007, in theU.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against thecompany and certain of its officers and directors. The suit iscaptioned, "Howard Katz v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case No.1:07-cv-01210-WMN" (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 7, 2009).

Since then, two other putative class action complaints werefiled in the U.S. District Court of Maryland against the companyand certain of its officers and directors and other partiesmaking similar allegations.

In addition, a fourth putative class-action lawsuit was filed inthe U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New Yorkagainst the company and certain of its officers and directorsand other parties making similar allegations. The fourth suitis captioned, "Barry Pincus v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., CaseNo. 1:07-cv-04720-RJH."

Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties and in an order enteredon June 29, 2007, by the U.S. District Court of the SouthernDistrict of New York, the Pincus case was transferred to theU.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

The actions claim to be filed on behalf of all persons orentities who purchased the company's common stock pursuant tothe registration statement and prospectus issued in connectionwith the company's initial public offering.

The lawsuits allege violations of Section 11, Section 12 andSection 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, inconnection with allegedly material misleading statements andomissions contained in the registration statement andprospectus.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, a determination ofclass action status, compensatory and rescission damages, arescission of the initial public offering, as well as fees andcosts on behalf of a putative class.

On July 13, 2007, Sandra Amrhein filed a motion to consolidatethe four cases, to appoint her as lead plaintiff, and to approveher choice of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as lead counsel, andTydings & Rosenberg LLP as liaison counsel. The court grantedMs. Amrhein's request.

On Oct. 4, 2007, Ms. Amrheim filed an amended consolidated classaction complaint asserting legal claims that previously had beenasserted in one or more of the four original actions.

On Nov. 20, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss theConsolidated Complaint, which motion was granted in part anddenied in part.

In May 2008, the defendants filed an answer denying allliability, and later, the court entered a scheduling order.

On or about June 18, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a motion forclass certification, for the appointment of class representativeand for the appointment of class counsel and liaison counsel forthe class. The defendants' opposition to that motion is due onor before Nov. 19, 2008, and any replies are due on or beforeJan. 9, 2009.

On July 16, 2008, the court granted the parties' motion to amendthe prior scheduling order to provide the parties with anopportunity to conduct a mediation. The initial meeting withthe mediator took place on Oct. 17, 2008.

On Feb. 11, 2009, the company filed a settlement stipulation andrelated papers with the Court, tentatively settling all claimsin the litigation. If finally approved, the settlement willresult in the dismissal of the claims against all defendants.The proposed settlement will include a cash payment of $3.2million by the defendants, $3.1 million of which will be paid bythe company's insurer and $0.1 million of which will be paid bySourcefire. Neither the company nor any of the other defendantsadmitted any wrongdoing in connection with the proposedsettlement. The settlement will require final approval from theCourt before it becomes effective. A hearing at which the Courtwill consider whether to approve the settlement has beenscheduled for June 12, 2009. No assurances can be given thatthe settlement ultimately will be approved, according to thecompany's May 7, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Howard Katz, et al. v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al.,Case No. 1:07-cv-01210-WMN," filed in the U.S. District Courtfor the District of Maryland.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Districtof Minnesota on Dec. 6, 2006 by Joe Rajkovacz and Carl SchaeferJr., under the caption, "Owner-Operator Independent DriversAssociation, Inc. et al v. Supervalu, Inc., Case No. 0:05-cv-02809-JRT-JJG."

It challenged Supervalu's policy of requiring drivers to showproof of insurance coverage grossly over and above what wasrequired by federal statute and regulation. Without thatinsurance, truckers had no choice but to use the only lumpingservice available to unload Supervaluís cargo; they could notunload it themselves, according to the Land Line Magazinereport.

TD AMERITRADE: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Consolidated ARS Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------------TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. seeks to dismiss an amendedcomplaint in consolidated class-action lawsuit captioned, "In reHumphrys v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp." pending in the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of New York, accordingto its May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Beginning in March 2008, lawsuits were filed against variousfinancial services firms by customers related to theirinvestments in auction rate securities.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege that the defendants madematerial misrepresentations and omissions in statements tocustomers about investments in ARS and the manner in which theARS market functioned in violation of provisions of the federalsecurities laws.

Two purported class-action complaints have been filed allegingsuch conduct with respect to TDA Inc. and TD Ameritrade HoldingCorp.

Both complaints were filed on behalf of customers who purchasedARS between March 19, 2003, and Feb. 13, 2008. The complaintsseek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, injunctiverelief, interest, and attorneys' fees.

Both cases are pending in the U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of New York.

A motion has been filed by some plaintiffs requesting that theproceedings in the lawsuits against the various financialservices firms in effect be consolidated before one judge. Thecompany and the other defendants and several plaintiffs in othercases have filed oppositions to the proposed consolidation.

The company and parties in other cases filed oppositions to themotion.

The cases, which are pending in the U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of New York, have been consolidated under thecaption, "In re Humphrys v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp."

An amended complaint was filed in February 2009. The amendedcomplaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, equitablerelief, interest and attorneys' fees. In April 2009, thecompany filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

TD AMERITRADE: Sept. 10 Hearing Set for "Elvey" Spam Suit Deal--------------------------------------------------------------A Sept. 10, 2009 final hearing has been set for the proposedsettlement of a lawsuit against TD Ameritrade Inc. that accusesthe company of illegally selling e-mail addresses to spammers.

Initially, one purported class-action lawsuit, captioned "Elveyv. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-02852-BZ," was filed onMay 31, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of California. The complaint alleges that TDA Inc.disclosed, inadvertently or intentionally, the e-mail addressesof account holders to spammers, who then sent the accountholders e-mail solicitations promoting certain stocks.

The suit includes claims of alleged violations of California andfederal statutes and alleged breach of fiduciary duty andrequests injunctive and other equitable relief and damages.

As disclosed in a press release dated Sept. 14, 2007, thecompany discovered and eliminated unauthorized code from itssystems that allowed access to an internal database. Thediscovery was made as the result of an internal investigation ofstock-related spam. The company hired an independent consultantto investigate whether identity theft occurred as a result ofthe breach.

The consultant conducted four investigations over the last 12months and found no evidence of identity theft.

A second lawsuit, captioned "Zigler v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.," wasfiled on Sept. 26, 2007, in the same jurisdiction on behalf of apurported nationwide class of account holders. The factualallegations of this complaint and the relief sought aresubstantially the same as those in the first lawsuit.

The cases were consolidated under the caption, "In re TDAmeritrade Accountholders Litigation."

The parties entered into an agreement to settle the lawsuit on aclass basis subject to court approval.

A hearing on a motion requesting preliminary approval of theproposed settlement was held on June 12, 2008. At the hearing,one of the three plaintiffs objected to the proposed settlement.Thus, the court entered an order denying the motion forpreliminary approval without prejudice and directed the partiesto provide supplemental information to assist the court inevaluating the proposed settlement.

On July 10, 2008, TDA Inc. and two of the plaintiffs providedsupplemental information in response to the court's directionand in further support of the proposed settlement.

After additional submissions were made by the parties, the Courtheld a further hearing on Oct. 7, 2008.

On May 1, 2009, the Court granted preliminary approval of theproposed settlement, which had been revised, and set a hearingon final approval for Sept. 10, 2009. The settlement is notexpected to have a material effect on the company's financialcondition, results of operations or cash flows, according to thecompany's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Elvey v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-02852-BZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of California, Judge Bernard Zimmerman, presiding.

TD AMERITRADE: Still Faces "Ross" Lawsuit Over Yield Plus Fund--------------------------------------------------------------TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. continues to face a purported classaction lawsuit captioned "Ross v. Reserve Management Company,Inc. et al.," in the U.S. District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York.

In November and December 2008, two purported class actionlawsuits were filed with respect to the Reserve Yield Plus Fund.

The lawsuits are captioned:

-- Ross v. Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; and

-- Hamilton v. TD Ameritrade, Inc. et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The plaintiff in the Hamilton case dismissed his complaintwithout prejudice on March 2, 2009.

The Ross lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased shares ofReserve Yield Plus Fund. The complaint names as defendants anumber of entities and individuals related to The Reserve. Thecompany is also named as a defendant.

The complaint alleges claims of violations of the federalsecurities laws and other claims based on allegations that falseand misleading statements and omissions were made in the ReserveYield Plus Fund prospectus and in other statements regarding thefund.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatorydamages, interest and attorneys' fees, according to thecompany's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

On Jan. 8, 2009, the company entered into an Agreement and Planof Merger with TD AMERITRADE, Tango Acquisition Corporation One,a wholly-owned subsidiary of TD AMERITRADE ("Merger Sub One")and Tango Acquisition Corporation Two, a wholly-owned subsidiaryof TD AMERITRADE ("Merger Sub Two") pursuant to which TDAMERITRADE would acquire the company, pursuant to a merger, fora combination of cash and shares of TD AMERITRADE common stockvalued at that time at approximately $606 million (the "TDAMERITRADE Merger").

In January and February 2009, three purported class actionslawsuits were filed on behalf of thinkorswim stockholdersrelated to the TD Ameritrade Merger.

No further details regarding the suits were provided in thecompany's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

thinkorswim Group Inc. -- https://www.thinkorswim.com --formerly Investools Inc., operates in two segments: BrokerageServices and Investor Education. The company offers onlinebrokerage, investor education and brokerage and relatedfinancial products and services for self-directed investors andtraders.

WCI COMMUNITIES: Fla. Suit Over Sale of Condo Units Still Stayed----------------------------------------------------------------A purported class-action lawsuit against WCI Communities, Inc.,and its subsidiary, The Resort at Singer Island Properties,Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District ofFlorida, remains stayed, according to the company's May 8, 2009Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit was filed in January 2008 on behalf of all persons whopurchased one or more of the 239 hotel condominium units in theSinger Island Resort. The Singer Island Resort is located inPalm Beach, Florida (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 4, 2008).

These purchasers have entered into rental management agreementswith respect to those condominium units, whose purchase priceaggregated to approximately $138.7 million.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Section 77(l)(a)(1), by failing to register with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission the public offering of the Hotel Units.

The complaint also alleges that defendant WCI violated Section15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77o, by controllingthe operations of its wholly owned subsidiary, defendant SingerIsland Resort, in offering the Hotel Units for sale withoutregistering them with the SEC.

The plaintiffs seek to rescind their acquisition of the HotelUnits and want rescissory or other damages in an amount to beproven at trial. The complaint seeks rescission of thecondominium purchase agreements and rental managementagreements.

On Aug. 4, 2008, WCI and 126 of its subsidiaries (excluding itsWatermark real estate brokerage, its WCI Mortgage business andcertain other joint ventures in which it is a partner) filedvoluntary petitions for reorganization relief under theprovisions of Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Codein the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware inWilmington, Case No. 08ó11643 (KJC).

The case has been stayed as a result of the company's Chapter 11filing.

The suit is "Mastrella et al. v. WCI Communities, Inc. et al.,Case Number: 9:2008cv80055," filed in the U.S. District Courtfor the Southern District of Florida, Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley,presiding.

WCI COMMUNITIES INC: Lawsuit Over Defective Drywall Dismissed-------------------------------------------------------------The purported class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. DistrictCourt, Southern District of Florida (Case No. 09-CV-60371), hasbeen voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs, according to WCICommunities, Inc.'s May 8, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year endedDec. 31, 2008.

On March 10, 2009, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed inthe U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Case No.09-CV-60371), against Knauf Plasterboard, Tianjin Co., KnaufGips KG, Rothchilt International Ltd., and WCI Communities, Inc.on behalf of all owners who purchased homes in Florida from WCICommunities, Inc. that allegedly contain defective drywall.

The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against thecompany, without prejudice, after the plaintiffs were notifiedof the company's pending Chapter 11 proceeding.

WCI Communities, Inc. -- http://www.wcicommunities.com/-- is a homebuilding and real estate services company engaged in thedesign, construction and operation of leisure-oriented, master-planned communities. The company's principal business linesinclude single and multi-family (traditional) homebuilding, mid-and high-rise (tower) homebuilding, and real estate services.It also develops and operates amenity facilities, sell selectedland parcels, and enter into real estate joint ventures,generally within its communities. As of Dec. 31, 2008, WCIconducted development and homebuilding operations in Florida,New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Virginia andMaryland. As of Dec. 31, 2008, the company had 54 locations,where it is building single- and multi-family homes or mid- andhigh-rise residential units or operating amenity facilities. Intotal, WCI controls over 12,000 acres of land.

WILLIS GROUP: Defending Suits Over Employee Benefits & Insurance----------------------------------------------------------------Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. continues to defend the purportedclass-action suits filed against the company and its newlyacquired Hilb, Rogal & Hobbs Company (HRH), according to its May8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Since August 2004, the company and HRH (along with various otherbrokers and insurers) have been named as defendants in purportedclass-action suits in various courts across the United States.

All of these actions have been consolidated or are in theprocess of being consolidated into a single action in the U.S.District Court for the District of New Jersey ("MDL").

There are two amended complaints within the MDL, one thataddresses employee benefits ("EB Complaint") and one thataddresses all other lines of insurance ("Commercial Complaint").

HRH was a named defendant in the EB Complaint, but has sincebeen voluntarily dismissed. HRH is a named defendant in theCommercial Complaint. The company is a named defendant in bothMDL Complaints.

The EB Complaint and the Commercial Complaint seek monetarydamages, including punitive damages, and equitable relief andmake allegations regarding the practices and conduct that havebeen the subject of the investigation of state attorneys generaland insurance commissioners, including allegations that thebrokers have breached their duties to their clients by enteringinto contingent compensation agreements with either nodisclosure or limited disclosure to clients and participated inother improper activities.

The Complaints also allege the existence of a conspiracy amonginsurance carriers and brokers and allege violations of federalantitrust laws, the federal Racketeer Influenced and CorruptOrganizations (RICO) statute and the Employee Retirement IncomeSecurity Act of 1974 ("ERISA").

In separate decisions issued in August and September 2007, theantitrust and RICO claims were dismissed with prejudice and thestate claims were dismissed without prejudice from bothComplaints.

Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal regarding thesedismissal rulings and oral arguments on this appeal were heardin April 2009.

In January 2008, the Judge dismissed the ERISA claims withprejudice from the EB Complaint.

Additional actions could be brought in the future by individualpolicyholders.

Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA ILimited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda. The companyprovides a range of insurance brokerage and risk managementconsulting services to worldwide clients. It providesspecialized risk management advisory and other services on aglobal basis to clients in various industries, including theaerospace, marine, construction and energy industries.

The suit was brought on behalf of an alleged nationwide class ofpresent and former female employees alleging that the companydiscriminated against them on the basis of their gender andseeking injunctive relief, money damages, attorneys' fees andcosts. The suit proposes a class period of 1998 to the time oftrial.

The company's motion to dismiss this suit was denied and theCourt did not grant the Company permission to immediately filean appeal from the denial of its motion to dismiss.

The suit was recently amended to include two additionalplaintiffs. The parties are still in the discovery phase of thelitigation, according to its May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended March 31, 2009.

Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA ILimited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda. The companyprovides a range of insurance brokerage and risk managementconsulting services to worldwide clients. It providesspecialized risk management advisory and other services on aglobal basis to clients in various industries, including theaerospace, marine, construction and energy industries.

New Securities Fraud Cases

CHARTER COMMS: Walden Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing--------------------------------------------------------------- Walden Law Firm, PLLC announced that a class action hasbeen commenced in the United States District Court for theEastern District of Arkansas on behalf of purchasers of CharterCommunications, Inc. securities between October 23, 2006, andFebruary 12, 2009.

The complaint charges Charter and certain of its officersand directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of1934.

Charter operates a broadband communications business in theUnited States.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,defendants issued materially false and misleading statementsregarding the Company's ability to service its debt, itspotential for mergers, and the value of its stock.

Specifically, defendants failed to disclose, among otherthings, that Charter would not be able service its debt toSeptember 2010, but rather Charter would file bankruptcy inMarch of 2009.

Also, the Defendants issued misleading statements aboutCharter's potential for mergers. As a result of defendants'false and misleading statements, Charter's securities traded atartificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching ahigh of $4.800 on July 19, 2007.

On February 12, 2009, Charter issued a press releasestating that it would file for bankruptcy before April 1, 2009.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of allpurchasers of Charter's securities during the Class Period.

IDEARC INC: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing---------------------------------------------------------------- Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that a class actionlawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court forthe Northern District of Texas on behalf of all persons orentities who purchased shares of Idearc, Inc. (PINKSHEETS:IDARQ) between August 10, 2007 and March 31, 2009.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that certainexecutives and officers of Idearc made false and misleadingstatements to the public with regard to its credit andcollection policies.

The lawsuit alleges the Company artificially increased itsrevenue by selling its products to customers who were notcredit-worthy which, the lawsuit alleges, resulted in millionsof dollars of receivables being written off.

A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certaincriteria and be made on or before July 7, 2009.

NORTEL NETWORKS: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing-------------------------------------------------------------- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that aclass action lawsuit has been commenced in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of New York on behalfof purchasers of the securities of Nortel Networks Corp.(PINKSHEETS: NRTLQ) during the period between May 2, 2008 andSeptember 17, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company'sfailure to disclose during the Class Period that demand for theCompany's products was declining; that the Company's financialresults were materially overstated from a failure to properlywrite down goodwill; that notwithstanding restructuring, theCompany was struggling to cut costs and improve profitability;and as a result of the foregoing, that defendants lacked areasonable basis for their positive statements about theCompany's business, operations, earnings and prospects.

According to the complaint, on September 17, 2008, afterthe Company announced its preliminary view on certain thirdquarter results and that it was engaging in a comprehensivereview of its business, the value of Nortel's stock declinedsignificantly.

A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certaincriteria and be made on or before July 20, 2009.

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissionsvia e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuringnews on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of targetasbestos defendants that, according to independent research,collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-relatedliabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited withoutprior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believedto be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact ChristopherBeard at 240/629-3300.